* 

JOINT  COMMISSION 

I APPOINTED  TO  ARRANGE  FOR  A 

WORLD  CONFERENCE 

ON 

FAITH  AND  ORDER 

ffir  Iva  irdvres  tv  <3<ri,  KaO <h$  crtf,  irarep,  iv  ipol  Kay co  tv  aot, 
Wlva  Kal  abroi  iv  ijpuv  tv  coaiv,  iva  6 Kda/uLos  TruTTeva’rj  6tl 
pie  oltt tcrreiXas. 

jlUt  omnes  unum  sint,  sicut  tu  Pater  in  me,  et  ego  in  te,  ut 
Bet  ipsi  in  nobis  unum  sint,  ut  credat  mundus,  quia  tu  me 
Kmisisti. 

| That  'they  all  may  be  one  ; as  thou , Father,  art  in  me,  and  I 
| in  thee , that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us  $ that  the  world  may 
I believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me, 

Jt 

THE 

MANIFESTATION  OF  UNITY 
| By  the  Rt.  Rev.  C.  P.  Anderson,  D.D. 

BISHOP  OF  CHICAGO 


[ »o  ] 


THE 


MANIFESTATION  OF  UNITY* 
By  the  Rt.  Rev.  C.  P.  Anderson,  D.D. 


BISHOP  OF  CHICAGO 


[This  paper  is  deemed  q worthy  of  publication  by  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  on  a W or  Id 
Conference  on  Faith  and  Order , which,  however,  does 
not  hold  itself  responsible  for  any  statement  or  opinion 
herein  expressed .] 

Dear  Brethren  of  the  Clergy  and  of  the  Laity : 


RACE  be  to  you  and  peace  from 


V_J  God  our  Father,  and  from  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Two  years  ago  I addressed  you  on 
“Catholicity  and  Unity.”  Let  me  re- 
turn to  the  same  subjedl  again,  and 
consider  it  from  another  angle. 

Unity  is  the  will  of  Christ.  Unity 
is  a fundamental  dogma  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  The  interior  unity  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  an  established  spir- 
itual fadt.  The  manifestation  of  this 
unity  is  the  duty  of  Christ’s  disciples. 

* A charge  to  the  Annual  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of 
Chicago,  May  28,  1912. 


Christ’s  agonizing  prayer  was  “that 
they  all  may  be  one:  even  as  Thou, 
Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I in  Thee,  that 
they  also  may  be  in  us : that  the  world 
may  believe  thatThou  didst  send  me.” 
“ I in  them  and  Thou  in  Me,  that  they 
may  be  perfected  into  one.”  The  bur- 
den of  our  Lord’s  prayer  was  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  will  of  God,  and 
for  the  fruit  of  His  own  sacrifice  in  the 
establishment  of  unity  and  in  its  man- 
ifestation amongst  His  disciples.  It  was 
a manifested  unity  for  which  Christ 
prayed.  “That  they  may  be  one”  was 
the  prayer.  “Even  as  we  are  one”  is 
the  foundation  of  the  prayer.  “I  in 
them  and  Thou  in  Me,  that  they  may 
be  perfected  into  one,  that  the  world 
may  know  that  Thou  didst  send  Me, 
and  lovedst  them  even  as  Thou  lovedst 
Me.”  There  is  a unity  to  be  believed 
in,  as  well  as  a unity  to  be  exhibited 
to  the  world.  It  is  important  to  keep 
this  in  mind.  It  is  essential  to  realize 
[ 4 ] 


that  the  interior  unity  of  the  Church  is 
a divine,  imperishable  reality,  and  that 
our  task  is  not  to  make  unity,  but  to 
make  it  manifest.  Extraordinary  results 
are  promised  from  this  manifestation 
of  unity.  There  is  unity,  but  the  world 
cannot  see  it.  There  is  unity,  but  the 
world  does  not  believe  it.  Our  part  is  to 
cooperate  with  God  and  yield  to  the 
strivings  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  the 
unity  of  the  Church  will  be  actualized 
and  visualized  in  such  corporate  man- 
ner that  the  world  can  see  it  with  its 
own  eyes,  and  seeing  it,  will  believe  in 
the  power  and  love  of  God. 

Unity  and  Union 

It  is  quite  common  to  contrast  unity 
and  union  as  though  a choice  had  to 
be  made  between  them.  The  words  are 
not  synonymous,  by  any  means;  nei- 
ther are  they  mutually  exclusive.  It  is 
well  to  define  one’s  terms.  God  makes 
unity.  Man  makes  union.  There  might 
[ 5 ] 


be  union  without  unity.  There  might 
be  a union  of  churches  which  would 
be  vastly  different  from  the  unity 
of  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  unity 
can  be  shown  forth  to  the  world  only 
through  union.  Under  present  circum- 
stances unity  means  the  union  of  the 
churches  in  the  Church.  It  means  that 
the  whole  Church  encompasses  and 
contains  and  controls  all  that  pertains 
to  it.  It  means  that  each  church  shall 
be  visibly  incorporated  into  the  whole 
Church  and  that  the  whole  shall  be 
clearly  the  property  of  each.  It  means 
that  the  tree  claims  the  branches  be- 
cause the  branches  claim  the  tree.  It 
means  that  the  life  of  the  tree  and  of 
the  branches  is  so  clearly  one  life  that 
no  one  thinks  of  asking  whether  the 
life-giving  sap  can  reach  the  remotest 
leaf  of  the  farthest  twig.  It  means  that 
each  baptized  man  is  conscious  of  his 
membership  in  the  one  Church,  and 
that  his  membership  is  immediate  and 
[ 6 ] 


diredt  and  not  derived  through  his 
membership  in  some  subsidiary  organ- 
ization. It  means  that  instead  of  a man 
saying,  “ I am  a member  of  the  invisi- 
ble Church  because  I belong  to  one 
of  the  visible  churches,”  he  will  say, 
“I  belong  to  the  One  visible  Church 
because  there  are  no  visible  churches.” 
It  means  that  the  churches  as  such  may 
lose  their  identity  in  order  that  the 
Church  may  preserve  its  identity. 

Unity  and  Catholicity 
I speak  as  a Churchman,  as  a Catho- 
lic, as  a Christian.  Do  I need,  does  any 
Christian  man  need,  any  other  terms 
to  define  my  religion  or  his?  God  is 
my  Father;  the  Church  is  my  Mother. 
Christian  is  my  name;  Catholic  is  my 
surname.  Do  we  need  any  other  names? 
Why  go  on  to  add  Anglican,  Epis- 
copalian, Roman,  Protestant,  Presby- 
terian, Methodist,  Congregationalist, 
Baptist,  and  so  on,  and  so  on?  These 
[ 7 ] 


terms  are  divisive,  sectarian,  narrow. 
They  shrivel  up  one’s  soul.  Names 
stand  for  realities.  The  realities  of  reli- 
gion are  its  affirmations,  not  its  pro- 
tests and  its  negations.  The  universal 
positives  of  religion  are  mine.  The 
whole  sweep  of  Christian  dodtrine, 
the  whole  field  of  spiritual  experience, 
the  whole  world  of  religious  values,  the 
whole  story  of  Christian  triumph,  in 
every  age  and  in  every  clime,  are  mine, 
because  I give  my  whole  allegiance  to 
the  whole  Church,  and  not  to  a mere 
segment  of  it.  Will  not  every  Chris- 
tian man  in  these  days  claim  the  same 
thing?  If,  then,  every  duly  baptized 
man  claims  to  be  nothing  less  than 
a member  of  the  Catholic  Church  (a 
claim  that  has  the  sanction  of  sound  the- 
ology),  why  not  begin  to  plan  to  give 
outward  and  visible  expression  to  this 
inward  spiritual  reality?  Why  seek  to 
perpetuate  division  and  segregation, 
except  to  thwart  the  will  of  God,  to 
[ 8 ] 


feed  our  own  pride,  and  to  defeat  the 
power  of  the  Church  of  Christ?  Chris- 
tians, Churchmen,  Catholics!  Chris- 
tians because  of  our  discipleship  to 
Christ;  Churchmen  because  we  are  in- 
corporated into  His  mystical  Body; 
Catholics  because  we  belong  to  noth- 
ing less  than  the  Church  universal. 
These  are  the  inclusive,  the  compre- 
hensive, the  unifying  terms.  Cling  to 
them,  dear  brethren,  cling  to  them,  and 
make  them  truly  expressive  of  your 
religion.  So  long  as  there  is  a drop  of 
denominationalism  or  sectarianism  in 
men’s  blood,  it  will  block  the  mani- 
festation of  unity.  God  never  made 
Protestant  Episcopalians,  — nor  Pres- 
byterians, nor  Congregationalists,  nor 
any  of  sectarian  name.  He  made  Chris- 
tians, and  they  chose  to  call  themselves 
by  less  lovely  names.  “We  receive  this 
child  into  the  congregation  of  Christ’s 
flock  and  do  sign  him  with  the  sign  of 
the  cross.”  That  is  your  only  Church, 
[ 9 ] 


and  that  is  the  sign  by  which  you  are 
known.  Realize  with  all  your  might  the 
universality  of  your  religion.  Impress 
it  upon  your  minds  and  upon  the 
minds  of  others.  When  men  begin  to 
realize  what  true  Catholicity  is,  they 
will  seek  ways  of  making  if  apparent 
that  they  belong  to  the  whole  Church 
and  not  merely  to  some  segregation  of 
Christians  whose  connexion  with  the 
parent  body  is  not  apparent  to  the 
world. 

Unity  does  not  involve  Surrender 
The  Christian  unity  programme  need 
not  awaken  any  suspicion  of  surrender 
or  of  the  sacrifice  of  honor,  as  the  diplo- 
matists would  say.  Rightly  understood, 
it  means  that  each  gains  all  and  loses 
nothing.  Itisamatterof  relating  things, 
— of  relating  the  churches  to  each  other, 
and  to  the  Church.  Every  man  recog- 
nizes that  each  church  has  done  much 
for  the  souls  of  men.  Every  fair-minded 
[ 10  ] 


student  puts  a high  estimate  on  those 
thrilling  movements  that  enliven  the 
pages  of  Church  history.  Those  move- 
ments and  the  churches  which  grew  out 
of  them  have  played  their  part  in  the 
progress  of  the  world.  Battles  have  been 
fought  and  won.  Battles  have  been  won, 
not  for  the  conquering  churches,  but  for 
the  Church  of  God.  They  were  battles 
and  movements  within  the  bosom  of 
Christendom  itself.  But  the  battles  are 
over.  They  cannot  befought  again. The 
Reformation  has  taken  place.  Protes- 
tantism has  arrived.  Luther,  Calvin, 
Wesley,  have  lived.  The  world  is  dif- 
ferent because  these  things  have  hap- 
pened and  these  men  lived.  But  the 
Church  cannot  live  on  its  past  con- 
flicts. It  cannot  acquiesce  in  an  armed 
truce  as  a permanent  attitude.  It  has 
firmly  resolved  not  to  perpetuate  inter- 
necinewar.What,then,is  to  be  the  next 
movement  in  Christendom?  Is  it  not  to 
correlate  and  to  coordinate  these  values 
[ ” ] 


which  each  church  has  proclaimed  at 
great  cost  and  for  the  stewardship  of 
which  it  is  keenly  conscious?  Since  the 
Reformation  the  Christian  religion  has 
been  subjedted  to  disintegrating  analy- 
ses. Men  have  taken  it  apart  to  ascer- 
tain what  each  jewel  in  the  setting  was 
like.  Has  not  the  time  come  to  put 
them  together  again  in  a beautiful  mo- 
saic? Truths  are  not  isolated.  They  are 
related.  They  are  one.  Modern  creeds 
and  articles  and  confessions  may  be 
admitted  to  be  true.  If  true,  they  are 
related.  Or  rather  they  are  true  only 
when  related.  It  is  no  discourtesy  to 
any  church  to  suggest  that  the  time  has 
come  to  abandon  this  analytical  pro- 
cess by  which  the  Church  has  been  dis- 
integrated and  to  substitute  for  it  a syn- 
thetic process,  by  which  the  churches 
will  be  related.  Harmonize  the  values. 
Synthesize  the  theologies.  Stop  fight- 
ing these  oft-won  battles  over  again. 
Cease  these  interminable  logomachies. 

[ 1*  ] 


Strive  towards  that  manifestation  of 
visible  unity  that  will  bring  defeat  to 
none  and  victory  to  all. 

Unity  and  Conservatism 
The  Christian  unity  propaganda  is  not 
radical  nor  destructive.  1 1 is  constructive 
conservatism.  It  conserves  the  original 
constitution  of  the  Church.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  you  are  reading  the  New  T es- 
tament  for  the  first  time,  without  any 
presuppositions  based  upon  modern 
conditions  in  Christendom.  You  read 
“on  this  rock  I will  build  my  Church.” 
“Tell  it  to  the  Church.”  “The  Church, 
which  is  His  body.”“  He  is  the  head  of 
the  Body,  the  Church.”  “The  Church 
of  the  Thessalonians,”  and  soon.  Here 
the  Church  is  one.  It  is  a Body.  It  is 
visible.  Now  take  your  eyes  off  the 
Bible  and  look  around.  Does  the  bewil- 
dering multiplicity  of  churches  fit  into 
the  Bible  conception  of  the  Church? 
Leave  out  for  the  present  the  form  and 
[ i3  ] 


organization  of  the  Church.  The  point 
to  be  pressed  is  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  strong  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  but  knows  nothing  whatever 
of  the  modern  idea  of  churches.  Poly- 
churchism  is  as  foreign  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  polytheism.  The  “ churches” 
of  the  New  Testament  are  geographi- 
cal congregations  of  the  Church.  It  is 
true  that  the  sect  germ  threatened  to 
invade  the  Church  even  in  those  early 
days,  but  it  was  anathematized  as  a sin 
of  the  flesh.  “Now  this  I mean,  that 
each  one  of  you  saith,  I am  of  Paul; 
and  I of  Apollos;  and  I of  Cephas; 
and  I of  Christ.  Is  Christ  divided  ?”  “ I 
beseech  you  that  there  be  no  divisions 
among  you.”  This  very  schism  which 
St.  Paul  characterized  as  carnal  sin  has 
become  triumphantly  rampant  in  our 
time.  When  one  saith,  I am  of  Rome; 
and  another,  I of  Canterbury,  and  I 
of  Geneva,  and  I of  Luther,  and  I of 
Wesley,  are  we  not  carnal  and  walk  as 
[ 14  ] 


men?  The  reunion  of  Christendom, 
then, is  not  a perilous  pursuit.  It  would 
heal  wounds,  build  up  the  Body,  and 
restore  that  unity  which  characterized 
the  Church  when  she  first  set  out  to 
win  the  world  for  Christ. 

Visible  Unity  an  Economic  Necessity 
The  union  of  the  churches  in  the 
Church  is  becoming  an  economic  ne- 
cessity.The  economic  argument  might, 
of  course, be  easily  overworked.  Money 
does  not  weigh  much  over  against  con- 
science. Nevertheless,  the  economic 
argument  derives  weight  from  the  fadt 
that  divisions  are  proving  to  be  as  eco- 
nomically unsound  as  they  are  theo- 
logically unsafe.  God  uses  political  and 
financial  situations  for  the  furtherance 
of  His  will.  Unlovely  complications 
have  often  ushered  in  great  move- 
ments. Hard  fadts  are  demonstrating 
that  Christ’s  dodtrine  of  unity  is  the 
only  workable  dodlrine  in  this  pradtical 
[ ^5  ] 


work-a-day  world.  It  is  being  proved 
up  to  the  hilt  that  the  churches  cannot 
do  the  work  of  the  Church. 

Take  the  missionary  situation.  What 
does  the  non-Christian  know  or  care 
about  our  ecclesiastical  differences? 
When  a Presbyterian  minister  in  India 
complained  that  his  greatest  difficulty 
consisted  in  teaching  his  converts 
the  difference  between  the  established 
Church  of  Scotland  and  the  Free  Kirk, 
he  should  have  been  retired  as  a man 
who  did  not  know  his  business,  or  else 
those  august  bodies  should  have  re- 
lieved him  of  his  embarrassment  by 
abolishing  the  distinction.  When  an 
Anglican  Dean  could  not  offer  up  spe- 
cial prayers  in  time  of  a sudden  calam- 
ity because  the  rubric  made  no  provi- 
sion for  such  an  emergency,  and  his 
Bishop  was  not  on  hand  to  authorize 
special  prayers,  it  raised  the  question 
as  to  whether  the  stiffness  of  Anglican 
uniformity  does  not  need  some  lim- 
[ 16  ] 


bering  in  the  interest  of  spiritual  unity. 
When  a “Christian”  minister  told  me 
that  there  could  be  no  union  apart  from 
immersion,  it  made  me  feel  the  impor- 
tance of  distinguishing  between  a fad 
and  its  expression,  between  regenera- 
tion and  its  sign,  between  a man  and 
his  clothes.  And  when  men  take  their 
stereotyped  idiosyncrasies  into  foreign 
lands  and  back  them  up  with  an  eccle- 
siastical organization,  it  raises  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  the  best  way  to  save 
the  heathen’s  soul  is  to  confuse  his  wits. 

Why  should  the  non-Christian  be 
contaminated  with  inter-denomina- 
tional controversies,  especially  in  the 
kindergarten  stage  of  his  Christian 
education?  Why  should  he  be  told 
anything  about  those  family  quarrels 
of  ours  out  of  which  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles,  the  Westminster  Confession, 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  all  the 
seds  of  Christendom  have  sprung? 
It  has  been  said  that  Japan  never  had 
[ "7  ] 


a gas  age.  It  leaped  from  kerosene 
to  eledricity.  Let  it  leap  into  the  full 
light  of  a united  Church  without  pass- 
ing through  an  ecclesiastical  gas  age. 
St.  Paul  revolutionized  acontinent  with 
one  Church  and  one  short  creed.  Is  it 
not  enough  to  take  to  Asia  and  Africa 
the  same  religion  that  he  took  to 
Europe  ? Either  the  missionary  enter- 
prise will  have  to  make  some  shortcuts 
which  will  startle  us  here  at  home,  or 
else  the  Churches  must  anticipate  the 
missionaries  by  putting  up  a more 
solid  front.  The  united  Church  can 
preach  a fuller  Gospel,  provide  more 
men  to  preach  it,  and  do  it  with  a 
more  economic  expenditure  of  God’s 
money,  than  can  the  aggregate  of  all 
the  churches.  The  choice  in  non- 
Christian  lands  must  be  between 
Christ  and  some  other  master,  between 
the  Church  and  the  world,  between  the 
Church  and  no  church.  It  cannot  be 
wise  to  compel  them  to  make  a choice 
[ 18  ] 


between  churches.  If  it  be  said  that  the 
missionary  propaganda  minimizes  or 
conceals  the  ecclesiastical  differences, 
then  they  are  either  wrong  in  doing  so, 
or  else  we  are  wrong  in  maintaining 
those  diverse  organizations  whose  dif- 
ferences our  agents  have  to  conceal  in 
the  interest  of  a truer  Christianity. 

The  economic  argument  applies  at 
home  as  well  as  abroad.  Take  some 
pra&ical  illustrations.  There  is  a city 
of  fifteen  hundred  souls  — men,  wo- 
men, and  children — in  the  Diocese  of 
Chicago.  That  city  has  nine  churches. 
Some  of  these  nine  are  supported  by 
home  missionary  boards,  and  get  more 
than  they  give.  Allowing  five  toafamily, 
each  one  of  these  churches  would  have 
about  thirty-three  families.  By  adtual 
count,  about  50  per  cent  of  the  heads 
of  families  do  not  belong  to  any  of  the 
nine,  though  they  are  by  no  means 
antagonistic  to  the  Christian  religion. 
Is  it  strange  that  men  find  it  difficult 

C *9  ] 


to  make  a choice,  and  that  they  cut 
the  Gordian  knot  by  choosing  none? 
Not  one  of  those  churches  is  strong 
enough  to  beget  self-respedt,  nor  to 
command  allegiance.  Not  one  of  them, 
nor  all  of  them  put  together,  can  be 
regarded  as  a worthy  exponent  of  the 
Christian  religion.  The  churches  have 
dethroned  the  Church.  That’s  what  has 
happened.  Compare  the  situation  in 
that  Illinois  city  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment idea  of  the  Church.  St.  Paul  wrote 
a letter  to  “the  Church  of  God  which 
is  at  Corinth,”  and  the  Church  got  it 
and  read  it.  If  one  of  St.  Paul’s  suc- 
cessors were  to  send  a letter  to  the 
Church  of  God  which  is  at  this  particu- 
lar city  in  Illinois  (or  any  other  city  in 
the  United  States),  who  would  get  it? 
Probably  no  one.  The  Church  of  God 
is  so  obscured  by  the  churches  that 
the  postmaster  couldn’t  find  it.  He 
couldn’t  see  the  woods  for  the  trees. 
Down  in  Indiana  there  is  a village  of 
[ 20  ] 


two  hundred  inhabitants.  It  has  six 
churches.  One  wonders  if  it  has  any 
Christianity.  These  are  of  course  ag- 
gravated cases,  but  approximately  they 
represent  a state  of  affairs  in  hundreds 
of  small  cities  and  villages  in  the 
United  States.  Is  it  Christian?  Is  it 
statesmanlike?  Is  it  good  religion?  Is 
it  good  business?  No,  it  is  a sin  and 
a shame.  Our  many  church  labels  are 
proving  to  be  libels  against  Christian- 
ity, and  many  religions  are  not  increas- 
ing religion. 

Then,  too,  if  many  places  are 
over-churched,  others  are  unchurched. 
There  are  rural  communities  and  many 
villages  and  small  cities  that  have 
neither  church  nor  chapel,  priest  nor 
preacher,  mass  nor  meeting,  Sunday- 
school  nor  catechism.  That  is  true  in 
the  southern  part  of  our  own  state.  It 
is  not  because  they  are  not  Christians, 
but  because  they  are  sectarians.  They 
cannot  have  five  or  ten  churches  and 
[ 21  ] 


so  they  have  none.  Come  right  home 
here  to  the  environments  of  Chicago. 
There  are  communities  on  the  out- 
skirts of  this  city,  with  either  no  com- 
munity church,  or  with  churches  sup- 
ported by  missionary  boards  and  sup- 
porting none.  Many  religious  bodies 
are  trying  to  meet  this  situation,  both 
at  home  and  abroad,  by  some  sort  of 
gentlemen’s  agreement  under  which  it 
is  sought  to  avoid  overlapping.  This 
is  good.  There  would  seem  to  be  no 
reason  why  those  denominations  which 
are  scarcely  distinguishable  from  each 
othershould  not  adoptsomesuch  plan, 
at  least  as  a temporary  measure.  As 
a permanent  policy  it  is  open  to  two 
grave  objections.  It  acquiesces  in  divi- 
sions and  it  deprives  the  people  of  the 
privilege  of  being  anything  else  than 
sectarians.  It  seems  to  say  that  divi- 
sions are  bad,  but  must  stay.  Worse 
still,  it  dooms  certain  sections  to  a nar- 
row Christianity.  No  denomination- 
[ 22  ] 


alist  claims  that  his  denomination  is 
the  whole  Church.  Consequently  the 
division  of  territory  would  establish  a 
sectarian  rather  than  a Catholic  Chris- 
tianity. Yes,  there  may  be  temporary 
expedients,  but  there  can  be  only  one 
permanent  policy  — the  reunion  of 
Christendom. 

Unity  a Social  Necessity 
Visible  unity  is  a necessity  from  the 
viewpoint  of  social  efficiency.  A sec- 
tarian Christianity  cannot  mould  the 
social  conscience.  It  is  incapable  of  a 
catholic  cosmopolitanism.  It  cannot 
adt  continentally.  After  all,  sectarian- 
ism is  only  one  remove  from  individ- 
ualism, and  individualism  is  incompat- 
ible with  organized  Christianity.  If 
there  can  be  five  churches,  there  can 
be  five  hundred  or  five  thousand,  or 
as  many  churches  as  there  are  individ- 
uals. Hence  the  premise  which  admits 
of  many  churches  carries  one  on  logi- 
[ ^3  ] 


cally  to  no  church.  Now  this  is  not 
Christianity.  Christianity  is  not  only  a 
religion  for  individuals,  it  is  for  soci- 
ety. It  is  a social  religion.  It  is  a King- 
dom, a Body,  an  Organism.  The  world 
is  the  subjedt  of  redemption.  Society  it- 
self is  to  be  regenerated.  The  nations 
are  to  bow  before  Christ. 

It  is  commonly  supposed  that  the 
function  of  the  Church  is  to  convert 
individual  men  to  Christ.  Yes,  it  is 
that,  but  it  is  more  than  that.  It  is  com- 
monly supposed  that  thefundtion  of  the 
Church  is  to  be  the  good  Samaritan  to 
those  that  are  fallen  by  the  wayside.  Of 
course  it  is  all  that,  but  it  is  more  than 
that.  Its  function  is  to  clear  the  high- 
ways— the  industrial,  the  social,  the 
political  highways  — of  thieves  and 
robbers,  and  not  simply  to  be  the  good 
Samaritan  to  those  that  have  been 
knocked  down  and  robbed.  Its  function 
is  to  bring  about  the  new  earth  in  which 
dwelleth  righteousness,  to  be  the  exe- 

[ 24  ] 


cutive  agency  of  God’s  Kingdom  of 
righteousness  and  peace  and  joy.  Men 
sometimes  say  that  if  the  Church  con- 
verts individuals,  society  will  take  care 
of  itself.  The  individual  must  of  course 
be  converted,  but  that  is  not  enough. 
Every  stone  in  the  building  may  be 
perfedt,  and  yet  if  they  had  not  been 
put  together  properly,  they  might  have 
fallen  down  over  men’s  heads.  Individ- 
uals may  be  good,  and  yet  society  may 
be  badly  constructed.  Society  is  some- 
thing more  than  the  aggregate  of  its 
individuals.  The  Church  is  infinitely 
more  than  the  aggregate  of  its  churches 
or  of  its  individuals.  Life  is  an  organ- 
ism.The  Church  is  an  organism. There- 
fore individualism  is  not  the  gospel  for 
this  world.  The  world  is  organized. 
Money  is  organized.  Labor  is  organ- 
ized. Society  is  organized.  Politics  are 
organized.  Even  the  nations  of  the 
world  are  beginning  to  organize  inter- 
nationalism. Everything  is  organized 
[ 2 5 ] 


except  the  Christian  religion, and  Christ 
prayed  that  that  would  be  organized. 
As  things  stand  now,  it  is  an  unequal 
fight  between  an  organized  world  and 
a disorganized  Church.  A disunited, 
disjointed,  individualistic  Christianity, 
where  every  church  and  every  man  is 
an  independent  unit,  cannot  stand  up 
against  the  highly  organized  conditions 
of  to-day.  This  was  well  recognized  by 
“The  Federal  Council  of  Churches  in 
America,”  when  it  put  these  words  in 
its  platform:  “Christ’s  mission  is  not 
merely  to  reform  society,  but  to  save 
it.  He  is  more  than  the  world’s  Re- 
adjuster. He  is  its  Redeemer.  ...  At 
no  time  have  the  disadvantages  of  the 
sectarian  divisions  of  the  Church  been 
more  apparent  than  when  the  call  has 
come  for  a common  policy  or  a united 
utterance.”  Those  are  wise  words.  The 
powers  that  make  for  unrighteousness, 
the  powers  that  corrupt  legislatures, 
that  promote  intemperance,  that  thrive 
[ *6  ] 


on  lust,  that  threaten  the  judiciary, 
that  oppress  the  hireling,  are  solid  and 
compact.  They  sink  differences  for 
a common  cause.  Against  them  the 
churches  have  a common  creed,  but 
an  uncommonly  unorganized  method 
of  defence.  They  are  beating  the  air. 
The  powers  that  make  for  unright- 
eousness can  mock  at  righteousness 
as  they  say  to  the  churches,  “United 
we  stand;  divided  you  fall.” 

Indeed,  it  has  come  to  pass  that  a 
large  part  of  the  work  of  the  churches 
must  perforce  be  taken  away  from 
them,  in  order  to  avoid  denomina- 
tional entanglements.  When  men  are 
moved  to  do  something  in  the  name 
of  God  and  humanity  for  the  city  or 
nation,  they  feel  compelled  to  make  it  a 
non-Church  and  a non-religious  enter- 
prise. Denominationalism  is  too  inco- 
herent for  a social  programme.  True, 
the  gospel  of  Christ  supplies  the  spir- 
itual conviction,  but  when  that  convic- 
[ *7  ] 


tion  takes  concrete  shape,  it  somehow 
seems  to  have  to  divorce  itself  from  the 
source  of  its  inspiration.  Thus  there  are 
settlements,  leagues,  associations,  or- 
ganizations, doing  the  work  of  Christ, 
but  forced  to  do  it,  forsooth,  on  a non- 
religious basis.  Thus  they  lose  ideals, 
inspiration,  spiritual  power.  Thus  the 
things  that  God  hath  joined  together 
are  being  forced  apart  through  the  dis- 
integration of  His  Church.  For  reform 
without  religion  is  the  mere  white- 
washing of  the  surface.  Society  needs 
regeneration,  not  simply  reformation. 
And  any  man  who  thinks  that  social 
regeneration  can  be  accomplished  apart 
from  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
speaking  through  His  Church,  is  liv- 
ing in  a fool’s  paradise.  Grasp  the 
situation,  brethren.  It  is  this,  that  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  in  danger  of  los- 
ing its  power  of  utterance.  Amidst  the 
jargon  of  voices  its  voice  can  scarcely 
be  heard. 


[ 28  ] 


Or  let  us  suppose  that  it  is  deter- 
mined to  organize  some  public  charity 
or  to  inaugurate  some  uplift  movement. 
You  are  sure  that  it  has  the  sanction 
of  Christ  and  of  all  good  men.  What 
happens  ? The  first  move  is  to  proclaim 
from  the  house-tops  that  it  is  unde- 
nominational and  non-sedtarian.  It  is 
Christian,  clearly  enough,  but  never- 
theless it  has  to  be  dissociated  from 
churches,  in  order  to  express  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  Church.  In  one  way 
this  is  a travesty  on  churches.  In  an- 
other way  it  is  eloquent  for  good.  It 
means  that  Christ’s  work  refuses  to 
come  under  sedtarian  lines.  Christ’s 
work  is  as  catholic  as  human  needs. 
It  requires  for  its  execution  nothing 
smaller  than  a Catholic  Church. 

Or  take  the  matter  of  Christian  edu- 
cation. Surely  this  is  fundamental  if 
anything  is.  Our  divisions  have  made 
it  impradticable.  They  have  separated 
into  two  the  things  that  are  one,  viz., 
[ 29  ] 


religion  and  education.  Education  has 
been  as  completely  secularized  as  if  man 
had  no  soul, and  the  world  had  no  God. 
Religion  has  been  as  completely  iso- 
lated as  if  chara&er  had  no  place  in  a 
child’s  education.  Our  education  is  los- 
ing its  religious  values.  Our  religion  is 
losing  its  educational  values.  Christian 
ideals  and  principles  cannot  be  woven 
into  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  lives  of 
our  own  children,  as  a part  of  their 
schooling,  simply  because  of  the  divi- 
sions in  the  Church.  To  my  mind  there 
are  three  great  problems  to  be  worked 
out  amongst  Christian  people  in  the 
interest  of  a permanent  Christianity. 
They  are  Christian  education,  Chris- 
tian social  righteousness,  and  Christian 
unity.  I believe  the  first  two  await  the 
third. 

Unity  a National  Necessity 
Christian  unity  is  necessary  to  give 
organic  expression  to  the  religious  life 
[ 30  ] 


of  the  nation.  The  Catholic  Church  is 
world-wide,  but  just  because  it  is  Cath- 
olic, it  is  also  national  in  tone  and  tem- 
per. We  love  to  call  this  a Christian 
nation,  yet  we  shrink  from  attempting 
to  define  what  American  Christianity 
is.  The  United  States  has  millions  of 
Christians  and  scores  of  churches,  with- 
out a Christianity  that  is  distinctively 
her  own.  Latin  Christianity  we  know. 
It  took  possession  of  the  Latin  nations 
and  moulded  their  religious  life.  Scotch 
Christianity  we  know.  Perhaps  there 
never  was  a religion  which  sank  more 
deeply  into  a nation’s  mind  than  Pres- 
byterianism did  in  Scotland.  English 
Christianity  we  know.  It  made  Eng- 
land. It  built  her  national  and  domes- 
tic life.  But  what  is  American  Christian- 
ity? Is  it  not  largely  an  importation? 
It  is  one  thing  to  inherit  Christianity 
in  its  essence;  it  is  another  to  import 
foreign  characteristics.  We  have  im- 
ported certain  national  types  which 
[ 3i  ] 


took  their  form  and  shape  in  other 
lands — an  Italian  Christianity  from 
I taly,  Lutheranism  from  Germany,  An- 
glicanism from  England,  Presbyterian- 
ism from  Scotland,  Orientalism  from 
Asia  Minor.  Proud  of  our  own  origi- 
nality, impatient  of  tradition,  our  reli- 
gion is  nevertheless  an  heterogeneous 
conglomeration  of  imported  traditions. 
Every  kind  ofchurch  can  be  found  here. 
Here  are  all  the  elements  of  ecumen- 
icity. Here  they  are  side  by  side,  yet 
they  know  not  one  another.  Are  they 
incurably  incompatible?  Is  there  noth- 
ing to  look  forward  to  except  the  per- 
manent establishment  of  foreign  types 
on  American  soil?  Centuries  ago  Eng- 
land blended  diverse  peoples  and  reli- 
gions into  one  Churchand  nation.  What 
has  been  done  can  be  done.  Here  in 
America,  where  churches  are  politically 
equal,  where  all  the  churches  of  Chris- 
tendom are  housed  under  the  same  na- 
tional roof — here  the  problem  of  unity 
[ 32  ] 


must  be  worked  out,  if  anywhere.  The 
nation  has  a problem  similar  to  that 
of  the  Church.  She  gathers  her  people 
from  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe 
and  makes  staunch  Americans  of  them. 
She  brings  order  out  of  chaos,  and 
makes  one  from  many.  Is  the  nation 
stronger  than  God?  Has  the  Church 
of  the  living  God  become  so  weak- 
ened through  disorganization  that  she 
is  incapable  of  bringing  her  American 
children  into  the  united  Church  of  the 
United  States?  Is  there  not  to  be  a 
Catholicism  that  will  express  the  reli- 
gious life  of  America,  as  Americanism 
expresses  her  national  life?  Surely  there 
is  something  better  in  store  for  us  than 
a condition  of  chronic  chaos.  Go  back 
once  more  to  your  New  Testament  for 
a description  of  the  Church  that  once 
was  and  that  may  be  again:  “That  we 
may  be  no  longer  children,  tossed  to  and 
fro,  and  carried  about  with  every  wind 
of  doftrine  . . . but  speaking  truth  in 
[ 33  ] 


love,  may  grow  up  in  all  things  into 
Him,  Who  is  the  Head,  even  Christ; 
from  Whom  all  the  Body,  fitly  framed 
and  knit  together  through  that  which 
every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the 
working  in  due  measure  of  each  sev- 
eral part  maketh  the  increase  of  the 
body,  unto  the  building  up  of  itself  in 
love.”  That  is  what  is  meant  by  unity. 
The  Church  is  fitly  framed  and  knit 
together.  What  a contrast  there  is  be- 
tween the  Church  of  the  ages  and  the 
churches  of  this  age. 

Brethren,  the  reunion  of  Christen- 
dom is  the  future  task  of  the  churches. 
In  working  at  this  task,  let  us  be  sure 
of  a right  start.  Christ  is  the  head.  The 
Church  is  His  Body.  Christians  are 
united  to  Christ  through  membership 
in  His  Body.  Here  is  an  indestrudli- 
ble  unity  at  the  outset — unity  in  the 
one  Lord  through  the  one  baptism ; the 
unity  of  a common  membership,  a com- 
mon discipleship,  and  a common  expe- 
[ 34  ] 


rience.  That  unity  exists  in  spite  of  all 
the  sedts  of  Christendom  and  all  the 
powers  of  hell.  Magnify  it.  Proclaim  it. 
Manifest  it.  It  is  not  our  business  to 
make  unity.  God  has  done  that.  It  is 
our  business  to  make  it  apparent.  It 
is  ours  to  try  to  bring  ourselves  and 
others  into  such  visible  unity  in  the 
One  Church  of  Christ,  that  an  unbe- 
lieving world  will  be  convinced.  Am  I 
succeeding  in  persuading  you  to  any 
extent  that  the  Christian  unity  enter- 
prise is  more  than  an  academic  theory ; 
that  it  is  the  will  of  Christ;  that  it 
is  a matter  of  practical  efficiency;  and 
that  loyalty  to  Christ  and  service  to 
the  world  combine  to  make  our  duty 
clear?  If  you  come  with  me  this  far, 
then  let  me  venture  to  point  out  some 
simple  ways  of  creating  an  atmosphere 
in  which  unity  will  have  a chance  to 
show  itself. 


{ 35  ] 


The  Atmosphere  in  which  Unity 
Thrives 

i.  Let  us  confess  the  sin  of  schism  — 
the  sin,  I say ; not  simply  its  economic 
disadvantage,  its  short-sighted  policy, 
its  unstatesmanlike  method,  its  unstra- 
tegic  warfare  with  the  world,  but  its  sin. 

i.  Let  us  confess  our  part  in  the  sin. 
It  is  easy  to  confess  sin  in  the  abstract. 
What  is  needed  is  an  honest  though 
humiliating  acknowledgment  of  our 
part  in  the  making  and  in  the  perpet- 
uating of  schism.  We  have  much  to 
confess — haughtiness,  aloofness,  self- 
satisfaition,  false  witness  against  our 
neighbors. 

3.  Let  us  cease  confessing  other 
people’s  sins.  We  Anglicans  have  con- 
fessed the  sins  of  the  Roman  Catholics 
and  the  Protestants  with  great  ardor 
and  with  unstinted  fullness.  Let  them 
confess  their  own.  It  will  keep  them 
busy.  We  are  not  authorized  to  do  it 
for  them.  We  are  forbidden  to  judge 
[ 36  ] 


others  and  commanded  to  judge  our- 
selves. Rome’s  contribution  to  the  sin 
of  schism  may  have  been  incalculably 
great.  Protestant  contributions  may 
have  been  incalculably  many.  But  our 
own  skirts  are  not  clean  by  any  means. 
Please  God  they  and  we  may  see  the 
sinfulness  of  our  sins  some  day  and 
humbly  confess  it.  Thankful  may  that 
church  be,  to  which  God  gives  the 
grace  to  be  the  first  to  cry,  Peccavi. 
Until  the  churches  are  convidted  of  sin, 
as  our  Methodist  brethren  would  say, 
there  will  be  little  progress  towards  the 
manifestation  of  unity. 

4.  Let  us  learn  to  play  fair,  and,  if 
we  have  to  fight,  to  fight  fair.  We  are 
familiar  with  those  pulpit  pictures  and 
polemic  brochures,  wherein  are  vividly 
portrayed  the  horrors  of  Rome,  the 
heresies  of  dissent,  and  the  unsullied 
beauty  of  the  Anglican  Communion. 
Of  course  we  have  no  monopoly  of 
that  ungenerous  business,  but  it  would 
[ 37  ] 


be  to  our  profit  to  get  out  of  it  entirely. 
Teach  the  Catholic  faith  positively. 
To  do  this  requires  no  negatives  and 
no  anathemas.  A whole  library  of  lies 
could  be  extracted  from  the  contro- 
versial literature  of  Christian  churches. 
What  false  witness  against  their  neigh- 
bors has  been  given  by  pious  Papists, 
pious  Protestants,  and  pious  Protestant 
Episcopalians.  Let  us  learn  to  tell  the 
truth  and  to  play  fair ; and  to  fight  fair, 
if  we  have  to  fight  at  all. 

5.  Let  us  put  the  best  possible  in- 
terpretation upon  the  beliefs  and  prac- 
tices of  others.  Assume  that  the  things 
that  mean  nothing  to  us  mean  much 
to  their  advocates.  Let  us  try  to  get  the 
point  of  view  of  the  other  man  for  the 
sake  of  the  enrichment  of  our  own 
minds.  Let  me  illustrate.  Because  the 
angry  dispute  of  some  centuries  ago, 
over  the  relation  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  to  the  Church  of  England,  was 
settled  to  our  satisfaction,  are  we  to 

[ 38  ] 


go  on  aggravating  the  rupture  by  talk- 
ing and  adting  as  though  the  Papacy  is 
and  always  has  been  unalterably  bad, 
and  as  though  no  place  could  be  found 
for  it  in  the  constitution  of  the  United 
Church  of  the  future  ? The  Papacy 
must  be  better  than  its  enemies  think 
it  is,  or  else  the  world  has  had  many 
brilliant  fools.  Because  the  Methodists 
left  us  for  reasons  which  do  us  no 
credit,  are  we  to  go  on  estimating 
Methodism  at  its  worst,  as  if  it  stood 
for  nothing  that  would  be  worth  while 
in  the  life  of  the  Catholic  Church  of 
the  future?  Methodism  must  be  some- 
thing better  than  some  people  think 
it  is,  or  it  would  not  have  brought  so 
many  thousands  nearer  to  their  God. 
Because  bishop-baiting  Covenanters 
and  lordly  prelates  lost  their  tempers 
a long  time  ago  and  called  each  other 
unspeakable  names,  are  we  to  go  on, 
now  that  things  have  cooled  down,  as 
if  reconciliation  were  impossible,  and 
[ 39  ] 


as  if  Presbyterian  theology  were  wholly 
foreign  to  the  Catholic  faith?  Pres- 
byterianism must  be  more  than  some 
of  us  have  thought,  else  it  would  not 
have  captivated  the  minds  and  domi- 
nated the  lives  of  a strong  intellectual 
people.  Estimate  people  at  their  best. 
Try  to  see  what  they  see.  Be  careful 
to  put  your  own  best  foot  forward,  so 
that  the  Church  of  your  allegiance  will 
be  seen  — not  at  its  worst.  This  lesson 
has  been  impressed  upon  me  afresh 
through  a considerable  correspond- 
ence on  Church  Unity  with  represen- 
tatives of  many  churches.  Amongst 
my  correspondents  have  been  some 
candid  friends  who  write  with  brutal 
frankness  about  the  Episcopal  Church. 
Dear  brethren,  if  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion were  the  wood,  hay,  and  stub- 
ble that  my  friends  think  it  is,  you  and 
I wouldn’t  be  where  we  are.  Now  it 
may  be  that  this  shoe  fits  the  other  foot 
also. 


[40  ] 


Please  do  not  misunderstand  me. 
It  would  be  foolish  and  shallow  to  talk 
as  if  there  were  no  serious  difficulties 
and  differences  in  the  way  of  visible 
unity.  There  are.  There  are.  There  are 
different  premises.  There  are  different 
conceptions  of  what  the  Church  of 
Christ  is.  There  are  fixed  habits  of 
mind  in  great  variety.  We  press  on 
towards  the  reunion  of  Christendom, 
not  because  it  is  in  sight,  but  because 
we  have  a passion  for  unity — a pas- 
sion that  is  based  upon  our  loyalty 
to  Christ  and  a desire  to  do  good  in 
the  world.  No  one  sees  much  day- 
light ahead  as  yet.  We  cannot  see  the 
distant  scene,  and  we  can  take  but  one 
step  at  a time.  But  we  feel  sure  that 
that  one  step  is  in  the  right  direction  if 
it  leads  us  to  think  highly  of  the  things 
of  others. 

6.  Let  us  lend  our  influence  in  the 
promotion  of  frank  and  friendly  con- 
ferences on  our  differences.  A World 
[ 4i  ] 


Conference  of  this  sort  has  been  pro- 
posed, as  you  know.  It  may  come  soon 
or  late  — or  never.  It  would  come  too 
soon  if  it  came  before  the  churches 
were  convinced  of  the  necessity  for 
union,  or  of  the  practicability  of  such 
a conference  in  promoting  it.  More 
important  than  the  Conference  itself 
would  be  the  spirit  in  which  it  as- 
sembled. Let  us  cultivate  that  charity 
and  that  love  of  personal  contadt,  with- 
out which  a conference  might  rekindle 
controversy.  On  some  other  occasion 
I may  say  more  about  the  scope  and 
purpose  of  the  Conference  plan.  In  the 
meantime  give  your  sympathy  and  co- 
operation to  such  measures  as  make  for 
friendly  and  unhostile  contaCt. 

7.  Let  us  aim  high.  Let  us  not  be 
afraid  to  place  organic  unity  before  us 
as  the  goal,  and  let  us  not  despair  of 
comprising  all  Christendom  within  it. 
There  may  be  intermediate  steps  to  be 
taken,  but  they  are  steps  on  a journey, 
[ 42  ] 


not  stopping-places.  Interdenomina- 
tionalism  may  do  some  good  in  places 
where  it  does  no  harm.  So  far  it  seems 
only  to  have  pronounced  its  blessing 
on  a state  of  division  which  it  deplores. 
Federation  may  do  much  good  where 
it  is  workable.  Its  great  value  seems 
to  be  the  witness  that  it  bears  to  the 
necessity  of  something  more  than  fed- 
eration. Cooperation  in  good  works  is 
absolutely  necessary  so  far  as  it  is  prac- 
ticable between  churches  which  come 
at  things  in  diredly  opposite  ways.  But, 
brethren, organic  unity  has  in  it  all  that 
these"  flickering  expedients  ” have, and 
infinitely  more.  The  greater  includes 
the  less,  but  the  less  does  not  include 
the  greater.  Interdenominationalism, 
federation,  the  cooperation  of  unat- 
tached bodies,  have  just  enough  merit 
in  them  to  be  tantalizing,  but  not 
enough  merit  to  warrant  their  advo- 
cates in  devoting  precious  time  to  their 
promotion.  They  have  this  merit,  that 
[ 43  ] 


they  indicate  that  men  no  longer  apo- 
theosize divisions,  and  that  they  are 
beginning  to  dream  of  better  things. 
While  we  are  at  it,  let  us  aim  to  reach 
the  goal  that  Christ  set  up,  namely, 
visible  unity. 

And  let  us  take  in  the  whole  sweep 
of  Christendom,  Catholic  and  Protes- 
tant. It  may  take  a long  time.  It  may 
have  to  come  one  step  at  a time, 
through  the  union  of  those  that  are 
most  closely  related.  But  every  such 
union  is  to  be  regarded  as  a step 
towards  the  realization  of  that  one 
holy  catholic  apostolic  Church — “fair 
as  the  moon,  clear  as  the  sun,  terrible 
as  an  army  with  banners.” 

8.  Let  us  pray  for  the  manifestation 
of  unity.  Christ  prayed  for  it.  So  must 
we.  It  is  easy  to  talk  about  it.  It  is 
easier  still  to  cry  Hurrah,  and  clap  our 
hands  when  others  talk  about  it.  But 
we  must  get  beyond  the  talking  stage 
into  the  praying  stage  and  doing  stage. 

[44] 


In  this  case  prayingwill  bedoing.  Take 
it  to  the  altar  with  you.  It  is  around 
the  altar  that  unity  must  be  mani- 
fested. It  is  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  that 
we  shall  learn  the  will  of  God.  When 
Christians  the  world  over  voice  their 
passion  for  unity  at  the  Mass  and  in 
the  prayer-meeting,  something  won- 
derful will  surely  happen.  Nothing  less 
than  this  will  win  the  day.  The  spirit 
of  separatism  is  that  kind  of  a spirit 
that  can  be  cast  out  of  the  Church  by 
nothing — save  by  prayer. 


[ 45  ] 


LOOK  downy  O Lord , upon  Thy  poor 
j dismembered  Church , rent  and  torn 
with  discord  and  even  ready  to  sink.  We 
will  hope,  O Lord,  that  notwithstanding 
all  Supposed  impossibilities,  Thou  wilt  one 
day  in  mercy  look  down  upon  Thy  Sion, 
and  grant  a gracious  interview  of  friends 
so  long  divided.  Thou  that  wroughtest 
that  great  reconciliation  between  God  and 
man,  is  Thine  arm  waxen  shorter  ? Was 
it  possible  to  reconcile  God  to  man?  To 
reconcile  man  to  man,  is  it  impossible? 
Lire  El  Thy  Church,  O Lord,  in  all  her 
petition  for  peace.  Teach  her  wherein  her 
peace  consists,  and  warn  her  from  the 
world,  and  bring  her  home  to  Thee;  that 
all  those  that  love  Thy  peace  may  at  last 
have  the  reward  of  the  sons  of  peace,  and 
reign  with  Thee  in  Thy  kingdom  of  peace 
forever.  Amen. 

Prayer  of  John  Hales  (died  1656). 


T the  General  Convention  of  the 


Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  in  1910,  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  was  adopted: 

HEREAS,  There  is  to-day  among  all 


V y Christian  people  a growing  desire  for  the 
fulfilment  of  our  Lord’s  prayer  that  all  His  disci- 
ples may  be  one  ; that  the  world  may  believe  that 
God  has  sent  Him Resolved, 

That  a Joint  Commission  be  appointed  to  bring 
about  a Conference  for  the  consideration  of  ques- 
tions touching  Faith  and  Order,  and  that  all  Chris- 
tian Communions  throughout  the  world  which 
confess  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  God  and  Saviour 
be  asked  to  unite  with  us  in  arranging  for  and  con- 
ducing such  a Conference.  The  Commission  shall 
consist  of  seven  Bishops,  appointed  by  the  Chair- 
man of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  seven  Presbyters 
and  seven  Laymen,  appointed  by  the  President  of 
the  House  of  Deputies,  and  shall  have  power  to 
add  to  its  number  and  to  fill  any  vacancies  occur- 
ring before  the  next  General  Convention. 


IT 


Copies  of  this  leaflet  may  be  had  free  on  application  to 
the  Secretary , Robert  H.  Gardiner , Gardiner , Maine , 
U.S.A. , who  twill  also  enter  on  the  mailing  list  those 
who  signify  to  him , with  their  post-ojflce  addresses , a 
desire  to  receive  the  publications  which  the  Commission 
experts  to  issue  from  time  to  time. 


Contributions  for  the  expenses  of  the  Commission  and 
the  Conference  may  be  sent  to  the  ’Treasurer , George 
Zabriskie , 49  Wall  Street , New  York,  U.S.A. 


